Bill and List: I would appreciate it if, when you reply to an article I have posted, you identify the author rather than me or make clear that I am not the author but only the person who posted the article. To read Bill's response, one would think I wrote the comments on NAFTA. I will take full responsibilty for my own thoughts and comments. I don't want to be held responsible for the range of views expressed in articles I repost. The alternative is that I simply cease posting other people's material to the list. Thanks, Michael At 08:59 AM 9/9/97 -0700, Bill Burgess wrote: >On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher quoted: >> >> 1) NAFTA has created new problems. >> >> Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic >> in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or >> bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of >> fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border. >> >> The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an >> unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs >> and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks, >> which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA. > >> Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists >> predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. >> jobs. >> >> Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border, >> water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries >> has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point. >> > >Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary >approach. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA >would be just fine. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico >is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose >NAFTA for **good** reasons! > >Bill Burgess > >
